Gottapu Poli Naidu Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010564832025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29397/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

GOTTAPU POLI NAIDU, S/O CHINNA APPALA SWAMY, DOOR NO. 7-353/25, APPALA NARASIMHAM COLONY, NEAR SANTHOSHI MATHA TEMPLE, VEPAGUNTA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530047.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action ofthe respondents, especially the3rdRespondent-Tahsildar, in interfering with my rights over the land in an extent of 120 Sq yards, in Sy No. 5 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi mandal, Visakhapatnam District covered by House-Site Patta No. 3 06/98 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14,21, and 3 00-A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my rights over the land in an extent of 120 Sq yards, in Sy No. 5 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the official respondents to consider and pass a reasoned order on the petitioners representation dated 02.09.2025 within a time-bound frame by following due procedure of law and pass

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶19

2

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the official respondents not to interfere with my rights over the land in an extent of 120 Sq yards in Sy.No.5 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi mandal, Visakhapatnam district covered by House-Site Patta No. 306/98 without following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.MEGHANA DULLA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

3

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29397 of 2025

¶26

ORDER:-

¶27

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶28

“… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents, especially the 3^rd Respondent-Tahsildar, in interfering with my rights over the land in an extent of 120 Sq yards, in Sy.No.5 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, covered by House-Site Patta No.306/98 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 3 00-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my rights over the land in an extent of 120 Sq yards, in Sy.No.5 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and pass such other order.…”

¶29

It is the pleading of the petitioner that a person in settled

¶30

possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such possession, without being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law.

¶31

In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,¹ a three-Judge Bench

¶32

of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed as under:

¶33

“..It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.”

¶34

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶35

4

¶36

In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh² , question cropped up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against true owner. Their Lordships held that true owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use of force, in case trespasser was in possession in full knowledge of the true owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:-

¶37

“In State of W.B. and others Vs Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another , reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134 , held that State and its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others except where their actions are authorized by specific provisions of law.”

¶38

In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others³ , the Hon’ble

¶39

Apex Court held that without any show cause notice or hearing, neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶40

"Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a showcause notice and hearing be given before demolishing or dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition."

¶41

"It is well settled that the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under, the law."

¶42

In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India⁴ ,

¶43

the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no one shall be

¶44

deprived of one’s life and liberty except procedure established by law as employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of

¶45

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

¶46

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶47

4 AIR 1978 SC 25

¶48

5

¶49

natural justice demands that the persons who are affected should be heard.

¶50

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1).

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶54

Date: 28.10.2025 KBN

Gottapu Poli Naidu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gottapu Poli Naidu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundararaju Srihari Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Manideep Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gullipalli Venkata Chandra Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Bhanu Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Katuri Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs the Principal Secretary